In his maiden speech after taking over the reign of Pakistan on August 18, 2018, Prime Minister Imran Khan made a tall promise to build ‘Naya (new) Pakistan’. Khan’s vision statement is reflective of his close observation, intimate experience and interaction with ordinary people. Also, it encompasses a variety of local perspectives; and it is easy to communicate and short enough to fit even on a T-shirt. However, he did not specify the mission statement which is the next step in the action planning process. This post argues that ‘naya(new)’ Pak needs ‘naya’ actions for a better Pakistan, aka #NayaPakistan.
It is a test and challenge for the leadership how it sets the priorities right and how it effectively utilizes the principles and policies that would help in translating a vision into reality.
To achieve the vision of ‘Naya Pakistan’, Prime Minister Imran Khan has to focus on three critical issues with ‘nayi soch’ (new thinking), as discussed below:
First, Strike On Terrorism
Experts, while speaking at the launch of the third revised edition of ‘Pakistan’s Economic Journey: Need for a New Paradigm’ (2019) authored by the former chief economist of Pakistan Fasih Uddin, pinpointed governance failure (read controlling terrorism) as the root cause of all of the problems of Pakistan. Thus, dismantling terror infrastructure is a vital step towards ‘Naya Pakistan’, since it takes away a lot of money which could otherwise be used for development activities. Currently, Pakistan is an epicenter of terrorism. Terrorism is a calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.
According to Daniel Byman, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, “Pakistan is probably today’s most active sponsor of terrorism”. Further, “Pakistan is not doing enough to curb terror financing and money laundering”, a global financial watchdog, Financial Action Task Force (FATF), said recently in a stern warning that reflects renewed scrutiny of the country’s links to militant groups.
The warning came a week after India threatened to retaliate against Pakistan for a bombing that killed at least 40 Indian soldiers in Pulwama (Kashmir) on February 14, 2019. The terrorist group that claimed responsibility, Jaish-e-Muhammad, or Army of Muhammad, operates in Pakistan, where it raises money under aliases, as per FATF and experts. Pakistan was put on the FATF grey list in June 2018 and was put on notice to be blacklisted by October 2019 if it didn’t curb money laundering and terror financing.
There are many terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Lashkar-e-Taiba, operating under the patronage of Government of Pakistan and its army. In a swift and precise airstrike following the Pulwama bombing, India bombed and destroyed Jaish-e-Mohammed’s biggest training camp at Balakot in Pakistan on February 26, killing a “very large number of terrorists, trainers, and senior commanders”. The airstrike was the first time since the war of 1971 that Indian Air Force fighter jets crossed the Line of Control and also the first time since both states have become a nuclear power.
After the air strike, Pakistan did not receive support even from its ‘friends’ including its all-weather friend, China. France asked Pakistan to exercise restraint, saying that it supported Indian actions against terrorism and asked Pakistan to stop allowing its territory to be used by terrorists. Further, the US, its former closest ally, noted its condemnation of the Pulwama attack and asked Pakistan to crack down on terrorists operating from its soil. Even the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has sent a signal of sorts to Pakistan by inviting Indian participation at the foreign minister-level meeting in Abu Dhabi.
Will Islamabad take action against terror groups? For ‘Naya Pakistan’, it is a must. It has been estimated that normalizing its relationship with its neighbors – all of whom, not just India, are plagued by Pakistan-based terror would bump up its annual GDP growth by 1.5 percent. Moreover, the international environment Pakistan operates in today is very different from what it was a quarter century ago when it could use its strategic cover as an American partner to secretly breed anti-India terrorists. But 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden taking shelter in Pakistan changed the US-Pakistan equation. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s Middle East allies too have become wary of its policy of using terrorism as an instrument of state policy. They see India as a more attractive investment destination with growing energy demands that their oil industries can fulfill, as observed by the TOI Editorial. In short, taken together, there is a growing international consensus that Pakistan must act on terror. And, it will work, but we have to give some time to Pakistan.
In other words, India must get Pakistan to keep it under GSP and simultaneously Pakistan must drop ambiguity and undertake credible action against terror groups.
Second, Reconcile With India
72 years on, India-Pakistan relations continue to be on a roller-coaster ride. Relations between the two countries have been complex and largely hostile due to a number of historical and political events. The region of Kashmir has been at the centre of tensions between two countries since both states came into being in 1947. Both claim it in full, and each controls a section of the territory. These sections are separated by one of the most heavily militarized borders in the world, known as the line of control, where there are frequent exchanges of artillery and small arms fire. The two South Asian rivals have fought three wars and one quasi-war over the last seven decades, besides engaging in periodic shorter clashes over their disputed border and sparring in international diplomatic arenas. Now both are nuclear powers.
How should India respond? India, for its part, should not be rigid, and should not totally close its doors to engagement with Pakistan. I think India should welcome this move. While keeping all options open, it is important for the government of India to make a definitive assessment regarding Pakistan’s intentions before taking the next step in both the military and diplomatic spheres. This is a difficult job, among other things because the real decision-makers in Pakistan are not the Prime Minister and his cabinet but the top generals ensconced in General Headquarters in Rawalpindi. It is not just the Pakistan army, but also the political class, which needs to be bold and stop being in denial.
Is there hope for India and Pakistan’s difficult relationship? India and Pakistan can either make peace or continue in an endless cycle of violence. For the moment, both countries have agreed on not escalating matters further. What can we now look forward to? Will an action like the air surgical strike deep inside of Pakistan in Balakot in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa end cross-border terrorism or solve the Kashmir issue? Will this approach help us? I don’t think so. Surgical strikes after Uri didn’t prevent Pulwama. Another may be heady but won’t deter Pakistan. It will make the country more revengeful.
For example, India under the leadership of Indira Gandhi defeated Pakistan in the war in 1971. A real war involving tanks, battleships, infantry divisions, submarines, warplanes and the lot, killing thousands, forcing their surrender, breaking up their country, capturing over 90,000 Pakistani soldiers, including their general, and jailing them in India. She ordered Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, then the President of Pakistan, to come to Shimla and sign a settlement on our terms. She thought all this decisive military action and strong leadership had permanently solved the problem of Kashmir and cross-border terrorism. But it didn’t.
It made Pakistan more powerful. For Pakistan, the 1971 war was a complete and humiliating defeat, a psychological setback that came from a defeat at the hands of India. Steve Coll, in his book Ghost Wars, argues that the Pakistan military’s experience in 1971 with India influenced the Pakistani government (and Army) to support jihadist (a Muslim who believes in using violence to achieve religious and political aims), because the jihadists were thought as a tool against India, including bogging down the Indian Army in Kashmir.
Also, after the war, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, President (1971-73) and Prime Minister (1973-77) of Pakistan authorized the highly secretive and clandestine atomic bomb programme, as part of its new deterrence policy, to defend itself and never to allow another armed invasion from India. Bhutto famously declared: “If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own”. This crash program reached parity in 1996 when the first nuclear weapon was successfully tested. As hard as it would be, but this is an opportune time for both sides to rise above the mindset of right and wrong, judgment and blame, and instead come together and work to build peace.
India and Pakistan have paid a huge price for the unending conflict. PM Khan acknowledged in his speech that it has cost Pakistan tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars. He also said it is in his country’s interest to address the conflict. India is in the same situation and has lost countless lives too. So, it is also in India’s interest to move toward a peaceful solution. The solution of the Kashmir problem is as simple as we want it to be or as complex as we want it to be. It can take seven months to agree or 70 years. But certainly, without recognizing the existence of multiple stakeholders and having a time-bound negotiation, we can never expect to see peace in Kashmir or in South Asia as a whole.
India’s approach of closing its porous border and treating Kashmir as a security problem is not a short-term stop-gap solution that does not recognize the humanitarian cost, nor does it treat Kashmir as the unfinished business of Partition. On the other hand, Pakistan’s approach of funding cross-border terrorists or so-called fighters is ultimately a piecemeal and failing strategy that achieves nothing long-term other than trouble for the local Kashmiri population and its own development aspirations including building ‘Naya Pakistan’.
It remains to be seen whether both countries have the political will, wisdom, and compassion needed for an actual solution. Thoughts, words, and deeds have to come together for this. We cannot say one thing and do something else. Only a truly grassroots initiative can help disentangle the historical and ideological baggage and de-link Kashmir from carrying the burden of India and Pakistan’s national identities. It will also create new social and political spaces for creative ideas exploring, for example, the meaning, form, content, and viability of a ‘soft border’ across the Line of Control in Kashmir. The key lies in shifting the focus from India and Pakistan to Kashmir, and from territorial disputes to addressing the political needs of the people.
To those who say that peace is never possible between these two countries, please remember that no one could predict the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Also, take the example of the highest level talks between North Korea and the USA to find a solution. Kim Jong Un’s nuclear and missile programs represent one of the most dangerous challenges since the end of the Cold War. But there are opportunities to stop them through dialogue. When Kim and Trump can talk to resolve the problem, why not India and Pakistan? You can draw a line but you can’t erase the history of more than 3000 years in just 70 years. We are the same people living under different governments.
Lastly, Focus On Human Development
Pakistan is the poorest country in South Asia, as per the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), developed by the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative (OPHI) and UNDP. MPI identifies how people are being left behind across three key dimensions: health, education and living standards, and 10 indicators – nutrition, child mortality, years of schooling, school attendance, sanitation, cooking fuel, drinking water, electricity, housing and assets. All these are the basic ingredients to eradicate poverty by unlocking human potential.
According to the 2018 report, about 43.9 percent of Pakistan’s population was living under multi-dimensional poverty, compared to 27.5 percent in India. It means around 90 million (nine crores) out of the total population of 200.8 million in 2018 can be classified as deprived, mahroom or vanchit Pakistanis. And, without empowering this population of 18 million families, Pakistan cannot think of becoming an inclusive and developed economy. And for this, a concerted strategy is needed.
My policy monograph – Nurturing Human Development: A Strategy for New India – proposes a strategy and it is christened as “HDPlus” (Human Development Plus). And it can be used by Pakistan to empower its population. The HDPlus strategy is a dynamic agenda based on a ‘whole child’ concept that is a school-going child and his/her family (that is HDPlus family) should be the fulcrum of human development efforts. The concept is being described by policies, practices, and relationships which ensure that each child is healthy, educated, engaged, supported and encouraged. It is aimed in laying the foundation for the human competency that is quality of being adequately or well qualified physically and intellectually.
If Pakistan wants a bright future for its people then it needs to act now. Time is the essence here. So stop wasting time. Make it happen today! It is, therefore, time to shift gears, up the momentum, and be more incisive in securing the interest of the disadvantaged people. For ‘Naya’ Pakistan’, the immediate development slogan must be: “Nau Crore Mahroom Pakistanis ki Taraqqi” (Development of 90 million deprived Pakistanis)”.
When Bangladesh was carved out of Pakistan in 1971, it was no match to its erstwhile western part (earlier West Pakistan) on most socio-economic parameters. Today, Bangladesh is already a solid member of the World Bank’s lower middle-income class. According to a set of statistical models that the Bank have developed, by 2030 Bangladesh appears to have an even chance of reaching the Bank’s upper-middle-income class (roughly US$4,000 to $12,000 per capita annually). For a country that Henry Kissinger dubbed it ‘a “basket case” at independence in 1971, that prospect is impressive. It is because Bangladesh didn’t squander its time and resources in breeding terror, focusing nuclear weapons technology as well as promoting religious hatred. Pakistan lost the plot to terror after the 1971 war while Bangladesh got its script right. From the very beginning, it focused on human development to incase its demographic dividend. When it comes to human development even India should learn from Bangladesh.
The state-sponsored terrorism and the nuclear programme have taken heavy tolls of Pakistan. On the other hand, realizing the gravity of the threat of rapid population growth, the government of Bangladesh has accorded the highest priority to population control in its human development strategy from the very beginning. This helped trigger the demand for modern contraception and formalize Bangladesh’s public health supply chain. As the rate of contraceptive use grew through the 1980s and 1990s, the country’s total fertility rate (TFR), an estimate of the average lifetime number of children that women will bear, declined steeply from around 7 in 1971 to 2.2 in 2017. Bangladesh currently has the lowest TFR in South Asia. As a result, Bangladesh’s population is rising at half the rate of Pakistan (Pakistan has crossed Bangladesh in terms of population as compared to 1971).
Bangladesh does far better than India, let alone Pakistan, on infant and maternal mortality rates. This means, to put it in plain terms that a child born in Bangladesh today has a much better chance of survival than a child born in Pakistan. Further, Bangladeshis live six years longer than Pakistanis on average. (Life expectancy of Bangladesh is even more than India.) It shows how healthy Bangladeshis are which enhances the efficiency of human resource in terms of productivity. What’s significant is that Bangladesh now exports more ready-made garments than India and Pakistan combined.
So, What Pakistan Can Learn From Its ‘Twin’?
- Bangladesh doesn’t put religion ahead on everything like Pakistan which led to an increase in Islamic extremists/terrorists in the country.
- Bangladesh has shown how a nation can power its progress by investing in people. It didn’t squander its time and resources in breeding terror and promoting nuclear weapons technology.
- Relations between India and Bangladesh have been friendly, although sometimes there are border disputes. The historic land boundary agreement was signed with India on 6 June 2015 which opened a new era in the relations and further stopped all irritants in ties.
- Further, India and Bangladesh are close strategic partners in counter-terrorism. On the other hand, relations between India and Pakistan have been complex and largely hostile due to a number of historical and political events.
Consequently, their relationship has been plagued by hostility and suspicion, though a large part of north India and Pakistan somewhat overlap in areas of shared lingua franca and cuisines. In sum, let us hope in the coming days the hatred between India and Pakistan will vanish and both will work together for mutual benefits. And, that will ensure not only PM Imran’s ‘Naya Pakistan’ but also PM Modi’s ‘New India’. It will change the life of at least 1/5th of humanity for better by freeing billions of dollars of the defense budget for development.